Wjolcz

I'm not talking about mods (and yes, I'm aware of those because I build things using them). I'm talking about an actual IL-2-like game with procedural parts and SPH/VAB style craft building. And besides, BDA doesn't work well enough to be used in DarkMultiPlayer.

So I've been wondering lately "Will there ever be a mass-produced personal flying car? If so, when?" And while reading about those I stumbled upon The Ford Flivver and thought that it's a pretty simple design. Seems like the plans for those were in as early as 1927. Henry Ford wanted his "Ford T of the skies" to be cheap and available for everyone, though it would probably still require you to have a pilot's license to fly. Then I asked myself "Would I be able to build one based on what I know from playing with FAR and playing various flight sims?" And, please don't scream "BUT OP YOU'RE NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH! YOU WILL DIE!". Don't worry. I don't have plans to do such thing. Not in the nearest future, at least. So I would like to spark a discussion. Has anyone built their own personal and cheap(-ish) plane in real life? Maybe someone from the KSP forums? I know there are modellers, but did they have courage to go bigger? What kind of equipment and knowledge would you need in order to build and fly your own tiny personal plane? More stuff to read about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_(aircraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Flivver http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/looking-back-henry-fords-flivver I also remember reading about a plane with two piston engines and counter-spinning double prop which was built by a guy to beat speed records, or something. I don't remember the name of it though, so if anyone knows what I'm talking about please post the link to it.

I'd like to see a Kerbal Aircraft Program game. Kind of like Simple Planes, except with multiplayer, proper aero and a full-sized globe to fly around with different missions (including the usage of weapons), WW2 themed dogfights, air races, and other historical-themed missions (break the sound barrier, spy planes, air-to-air refuelling, etc.) So if anyone from SQUAD is reading it: I'd pay $15 for it (mostly because dollar got more expensive in Poland and I'm a poor college student). OK, let's say $20 would be a good price for something like that too.

Is Heinkel Lerche considered a monoplane? EDIT: It's coleopter, but would you allow such design? I think it would balance itself out pretty well considering it's a VTOL, has to have a certain mass and TWR of >1. It probably couldn't carry much guns/ammo.

Sounds like a good idea, as long as there were some warnings and time predictions about when a vessel will leave the SOI.

Or they could specify the most optimal and least dV transfer date.

But it looks bad. And you still have to create some ridiculous rover-thing to refuel ships on the surface. KIS/KAS should be stock. As @tater said, it gives kerbals things to do on Eva.

But that's a biplane...

Holy crap I remember this from before I registered my first account here, but have no idea what it was refering to.

I would like a damage system based on that for everything. Some sort of scratches/cracks/holes texture would be applied and something like landing on the bell of a nozzle would make it more prone to overheating, or exploding. Also fuel leaks from tanks. That would be better than just exploding on impact.

I still haven't figured out how to balance my fighter. If I were a ministry of defence I would cancel that project a long time ago. Will try those BD improvements ferram is talking about. Maybe that will help. Hope I don't run out of time.

I sometimes have this problem when I forget to enable SPH mirroring and end up grabbing a part, which I have to fine tune to make it look good and/or functional again. It would be much easier to just right-click something and choose "mirror this part", or whatever the option would be called. Thanks.

Go buy some merch if you really want to support the game. My wallet is pretty thin already and I'm super happy that I paid 15 bucks for the game. A paid subscription for new content would be the worst thing to do and ruin the company's PR. If you want to have new content go play with the mods. There are plentybof quality ones. Though there's one thing I would happily pay for... And it's not Kerbal Space Program 2, but rather Kerbal Aircraft Program. With the building capabilities we have in KSP, better aerodynamics, procedural parts, proper missions and multiplayer (and weapons, of course) on a planet that is Earth-sized. I would be super happy to throw another 15 bucks into SQUAD's pocket. Just imagine how much fun would that be! There's a conflict you have to take care of, so you and your buddies build yourselves planes, take-off from a nearby carrier and either go wreck some AI guys or dogfight real people who are trying to defend them! Break the sound barrier, build a superfast spyplane and take some pics over enemy's territory, go biplanes or WW2 on a different continent, go race other people through canyons, or just build your tiny Cessna and have a sightseeing trip over the mountains! I would play the hell out of this thing!

I would totally want to go to some Super Earth planet and live there for a few years. It would be a never ending workout there, but it would probably ruin your spine after a while, but then again I'm no physiotherapist, so can't be sure.

I am no astrobiology expert but if I were to guess I would say that life on a moon like Europa or Enceladus would look like a fish, but without eyes. With round head with only mouth in it somewhere (most likely the bottom part aka catfish mouth). The front of the head would be either of smooth surface or full of wrinkles (or whatever it's called. Just imagine it looking like human brain cortex) to maximize the amount of receptors that would be on the surface. Think about shark's ability to detect eletric signals in a dog's nose.

I managed 920 Kph on mine. Too bad it doesn't mean anything since the AI tries to outturn eachother... EDIT: OK, I got my plane ready, but it's an energy fighter, so I really need that AI improvement first.

Can we expect this to be implelented when tetryds runs his battles? I have a great energy fighter which loses almost everytime because a slower, but more manouverable plane outturns it. @BahamutoD @tetryds

Still working on my entry. Making a flying wing combat-worthy is no easy task. @tetryds how many fighters/participants are you planning to accept? Is there a set limit?

I have a question about control surfaces stalling. I have this flying wing that flies really well except for when pitching up: I remember having a flying wing that would work and be super manouverable, but I don't remember how I dealt with the problem. I mean the wobble when fully pitching up or down. Perhaps the surfaces that are used for pitching are too close to CoM? Should I add more sweep? Make them smaller? Any useful tips and help much appreciated.

Eh... You RO guys... I suggested KER to OP because it's the laziest easiest and fastest way of doing it.

I remember doing my RATOL with SRBs. What I wanted to do is to try and land a big plane on thr island runway. What I did was pretty easy. I took the plane for a flight and tried fly as slow as possible without stalling. When I knew how slow I could go I added the SRBs and adjusted their fuel levels to have the same exact (or as close as possible) dV as the slowest speed of my plane. Basically, fly your mission first. Note how fast you are going when you are at the Apo, add the needed dV by adding appropriate amount of fuel in your SRB and activate it to achieve the orbit. At least that's what I'd do. Btw: you need KER to figure this stuff out.

I like the idea. We could design cockpits ourselves and SQUAD wouldn't have to waste so much time putting stuff there. Just put the walls inside so we can add all those important clocks however we like. Not sure how hard an IVA editor would be to code, but if it worked just like the standard VAB/SPH editor with surface attachment I would be super happy about that. Also adjusting the amount of windows and their shapes. High visibility Arado 234 cockpits on everything! There was a time I used to be against procedural parts, but they just add too much freedom and design opportunities. Creativity is a good thing.

This is pretty genius. The visualisation of the time line would be extremely helpful for newbies when multiplayer comes out.

Functional space station? Naaaaaah... Just make it look cool.

I think I would prefer if observing unique objects gave actual scientific info about what is happening there and why. The composition of observed star/size of planets orbiting them/their orbits/pulsars and their evolution and plenty of other things like that. I think SPORE kind of tried to achieve that, but it would work even better in KSP.